Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relations, absent independent corroboration.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour, District at Nahan (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. It was asserted that informant Parminder Singh (PW-2) and his uncle Sarwan Kumar (PW-3) were going to their home on 22.08.2010 at about 9:30 p.m. They met Parkash Chand (accused) on the way. The informant and the accused had a dispute over the land. The accused gave beatings to the informant Parminder Singh (PW-2) and Sarwan Kumar (PW-3), who sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW8/A) in the daily diary was recorded in the Police Station. An application (Ext.PW-5/A) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Pankaj Gaur (PW-7) conducted the medical examination of Parminder Singh (PW-2) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He advised an X-ray. A fracture of the mandible was detected after the X-ray. Hence, an MLC (Ext.PW7/A) was issued stating that the informant had sustained grievous injuries. Dr. Pankaj Gaur also examined Sarwan Kumar (PW-3) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. No fracture was detected in the X-ray. The nature of the injury was simple, which could have been caused within 24 hours of the examination by a blunt weapon. He issued MLC (Ext.PW7/B). F.I.R. (Ex.PW-5/B) was registered in the Police Station. HC Gurdial Singh (PW-5) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW-5/C). The accused produced as tick (Ext.P-1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/A). The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. LHC Surender Pal (PW-1) is the witness to the recovery. Parmidner Singh (PW-2) and Sarwan Kumar (PW-3) are the victims. Ranjeet Singh (PW-4) is the eyewitness. HC Gurdial Singh (PW-5) conducted the investigation. Dr. D.D.Sharma (PW-6) examined the X-ray and issued the reports. Dr. Pankaj Gaur (PW-7) conducted the medical examination of the injured. HC Om Pal (PW-8) proved the entry in the daily diary.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that the informant had forcibly created a path over his land. He made a complaint to the Gram Panchayat. The informant stopped the work but filed a false case. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the incident had occurred during the night, and the identification of the accused was not established. R